Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1107722171-scaled

Is a populist right-progressive left anti-war alliance still possible?

Both groups have serious differences to overcome, but a shared aversion to the Blob and endless conflict is a powerful motivator.

Analysis | Global Crises
google cta
google cta

Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller announced Tuesday that the U.S. is pulling 2,500 American troops from Afghanistan and hundreds from Iraq and Somalia — a move that is in line with President Trump’s campaign promise to put “America first” and end “forever wars.” It is also a signal that a left-right alliance backing elements of his agenda is not only still possible, but critical as Joe Biden replaces him in the White House.

Trump has already received pushback from the establishment for this latest attempt to wind down U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the exit “premature” and said it “would hurt our allies and delight the people who wish us harm.” The president pushed out his defense secretary, Mark Esper, last week after Esper sent an internal memo warning that the conditions weren’t right for an accelerated withdrawal. 

Meanwhile, Biden, who has traditionally been more hawkish on foreign policy — he voted for the Iraq War — seems to agree with McConnell’s perspective, at least in part. He told Stars and Stripes in February, “These forever wars have to end... but here's the problem, we still have to worry about terrorism,” and suggested he’d maintain a footprint of up to 2,000 troops on the ground, despite a U.S.-Taliban agreement to withdraw all U.S. troops by May 2021.

It’s a good sign for the rise of restraint-minded foreign policy that Biden had to publicly acknowledge that wars in the Middle East have dragged on with no clear goal or end in sight. However, his insistence on leaving a few thousand troops in place, his recruitment of known interventionists to his transition team, and his personal coziness with neoconservatives leaves plenty of cause for concern. In order to hold Biden accountable, it is time for national conservatives and the anti-war left to form at least a temporary coalition to end endless wars and stand against further ill-advised foreign entanglements. 

It seems crazy to imagine these two groups standing on the same side of an issue given how divisive our politics has become in recent years. But Sens. Josh Hawley, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Reps. Ro Khanna, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Thomas Massie, Matt Gaetz, and outgoing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard have all publicly criticized U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and urged a less reactionary approach to foreign policy. Khanna even co-sponsored legislation with Gaetz that would prevent federal funds from being used to go to war with Iran without congressional approval. 

Cross-party coalitions, of course, often sound easier than they are in reality. Both groups have to put aside a lot of baggage to identify areas of commonality. The progressive left has often accused the populist right of rooting its focus on domestic politics in racism and xenophobia and has gone hard after Trump, even as his administration brought a non-interventionist spirit back to the forefront of the foreign policy discussion. These conservatives have been more willing to criticize the failures of capitalism and corporatism than their conventional Republican counterparts but are farther to the right on cultural and social issues. Where both groups agree, and where their shared focus should be during a Biden administration, is in their skepticism of the military industrial complex, their aversion to nation-building, and their awareness of the effects of endless wars on the working class. 

As Sen. Hawley wrote Tuesday in a letter to acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, supporting Trump’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, “sons and daughters are now patrolling their parents’ old routes, and many of the U.S. servicemembers in Afghanistan were not even born when the 9/11 attacks occurred… [the American people] deserve to know their sons and daughters will not be put in harm’s way unless it is absolutely necessary.”

Indeed, the well-paid and college-educated lobbyists, military generals, defense contractors, and career politicians dream up conflicts and it is the working class who often join the military to fight in them. The anti-elite strains of the left and the right agree that the era of sacrificing less than one-half of one percent of Americans to perpetuate failed and costly missions abroad is over. 

Biden taking office — and being briefed on national security issues by people like former Amb. Samantha Power and retired Adm. Bill McRaven — won’t be the only challenge for this coalition. The populist wing will separately have to contend with their own party’s potential backslide into neoconservatism. While the neocons were pretty much kicked to the curb after 2016, they will view Trump’s loss as an opportunity to regain control of a fractured party. This would be a huge mistake, as Trumpism pulled in a record number of voters and helped the GOP keep hold of the Senate and make gains in the House. 

In addition, nearly three quarters of Americans support bringing troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The young blood in the GOP will have to work hard to keep the old guard from controlling the party once more, or risk devastating long-term electoral failure.


May 25, 2018: Protest sign in front of Whitehouse to support troops back home. (Shutterstock/Worachai C)
google cta
Analysis | Global Crises
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.